Big picture view from an outsider. A merger agreement now exists. An SLI will now be required by law. APA operates for American under a single list and a single operation. USAPA operates for USAirways under two lists and two completely separate operations. Since the two operations have never been combined, any gains by any group have been enjoyed by only that group. Any pain for one group has also only been suffered by that group. So now the question before any judge will be: Why would it be unfair to bring the 3 lists to an arbitrator and integrate the 3 lists? Who is harmed by the use of that methodology as a starting point for arbitration?

If your answer is that you want to start with an arbitrated award that was never implemented with an operation that was never combined, I would ask you why? What's the difference? The only credible answer is that you want it because it advantages you in some way. And that is the very definition of a windfall that SLI's are supposed to minimize. It's interesting, but the harder one side pushes for the Nic award, the more it proves that the Nic really was a significant windfall. And a significant windfall will be a hard sell in civil court as you'll be saying: "We will be irreparably damaged...unless you let us have a significant windfall." Good luck with that argument guys. I think you'd come out quicker and look more interested in fairness if you brought all 3 lists to the arbitrator.

Carl